On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Jonathan Schleifer<[email protected]> wrote: > Am 16.07.2009 um 12:04 schrieb Kevin Smith: > >> If it takes 5 minutes for you to get initial presence from someone, >> that means it's taking 5 minutes to establish s2s and do the presence >> round-trip. Now, even if the server remembered (and told you) that >> they're online, wouldn't that mean that the first message you sent >> would also take the same time for the servers to get it in gear >> together? In this case it might even be preferable see them as >> offline, if you wouldn't be effectively able to communicate yet. > > No, the idea is to keep the s2s link open and the other server always sends > presences, even if I'm not online. When I come online, my server could then > send me the last presence. >
I know a server (or two in fact) that don't aggressively close s2s connections ;) > The problem here is, as you already said, s2s. When I sign in, about 50 s2s > links needs to be opened, which can take quite a while as my TLS key is 4096 > bits. > > If for example an s2s link would only be closed if it has been inactive for > 48h, then you know it's really not going to be used anytime soon. I think > keeping it for 48h and exchanging and caching presences would be ok and > solve the issue. In fact, it would need less resources than the ultra-low > timeout of 10 minutes that a lot of servers have. > I agree. >> As an aside: I have no idea what would cause a server to consistently >> take 5 minutes to get presence to you (apart from sever. overloading, >> or brokenness) - does anyone have any thoughts on this, because it >> seems to me that this is the underlying problem we're trying to solve >> here. > > It's because all s2s links are opened at once, I guess. > I don't see why opening 50 connections should take 5 minutes. I haven't tested the existing one, but with the new connection framework we are writing for Prosody it can accept about 10,000 connections in less than a few seconds. There is no reason a connection ought to take 5 minutes to complete, unless your s2s is using RFC 1149/2549. > IMO, we need to specify a lot more for s2s - a lot there is unspecified. For > example after how much time a connection should be considered idle. I think this should be decided by the server admin, protocols shouldn't dictate these things. The issue of caching presences... it is possible to do that, I just don't think it is necessary (read Kev's initial post to learn why). The s2s connection issues are for the affected server implementations to solve, not the XSF. Matthew
